M/S. RATAN MOTORS, MUMBAI v. THE ACIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL AM AND SMT.ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JM ITA NOS.3579 & 3580/MUM/2007 : ASST.YEARS 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 M/S.RATAN MOTORS GOVANDI STATION ROAD BEHIND LAKME DEONAR MUMBAI 400 088. PA NO.AAAAR0090C. VS. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 22(2) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.4122 & 4488/MUM/2007 ASST.YEARS 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 22(2) MUMBAI. VS. M/S.RATAN MOTORS GOVANDI STATION ROAD BEHIND LAKME DEONAR MUMBAI 400 088. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.N.JHA [CIT-DR] ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.L.SHARMA O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL AM : THESE FOUR CROSS APPEALS TWO BY THE ASSESSEE AND EQUAL NUMBER BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-2004 AND 2004-2005. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON WE ARE THEREFORE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED THROUGH GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 11 60 086. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THESE GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEALER IN AUTOMOBIL ES SPARE PARTS AND SERVICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT AS PER TDS CERTIFICA TES THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 61 84 246. HOWEVER ONLY A SUM OF RS .50 24 167 WAS DECLARED AS INCOME ON THIS ACCOUNT. ON BEING SHOW CAUSED THE A SSESSEE STATED THAT THE ITA NOS.3579 4122 3580 & 4488/MUM/2007 M/S.RATAN MOTORS. 2 DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT BETWEEN THESE TWO FIGURES REPRE SENTED COMMISSION PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMERS. SUCH AMOUNT WAS STATED TO BE AT RS.1 09 64 284. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.1 11 60 086. DURING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMERS WHICH WAS NOT A DIRECT EXPENDITURE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD I N SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM EXCEPT FILING ONE REPLY ON 31.3.2006 BEING THE LAST DATE FOR THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REP ORT FROM THE A.O. BY CONSIDERING SUCH REMAND REPORT THE LEARNED CIT(A) D ELETED THE ADDITION. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. COPY OF REMAND REPORT DATED 28.11.2006 HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY MATER IAL BEFORE THE A.O. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES GIVEN EXCEPT F ILING A LETTER ON 30.3.2006 IN THE TAPAL. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ISSUED NOTICES U/S.133(6) TO 28 CUSTOMERS ON RANDOM BASIS SO AS TO VERIFY THE GE NUINENESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAYMENT. A TABLE HAS BEEN DRAW N IN THE REMAND REPORT AS PER WHICH ONLY 9 PERSONS REPLIED. THERE WAS NO COMPLIAN CE FROM 10 CUSTOMERS EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICES WERE SERVED AND ON REMAINING 9 C USTOMERS THE NOTICES COULD NOT BE SERVED AND WERE RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITI ES. THE A.O. DISCUSSED THE QUESTION OF ALLOWING COMMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE WIT H 9 PARTIES WHO RESPONDED TO HIS NOTICES ISSUED U/S.133(6) . THERE IS NO ADMISSI ON BY ANY OF THESE 9 PARTIES THAT THEY RECEIVED COMMISSION. AS AGAINST THIS WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CO NTENTION THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT PAID DIRECTLY TO THE CUSTOMERS BUT IT WAS B Y WAY OF THE RECEIPT OF REDUCED SALE PRICE FROM THE FINANCING AGENCIES SUCH AS ABN AMRO H.D.F.C. ETC. TO PUT IT IN SIMPLE WORDS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE VEHICLES IN RESPECT OF WHICH COMMISSION OF RS.1.09 CRORE IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID ARE THE CASES IN WHICH THE FINANCING WAS OBTAINED BY THE CUSTOMERS. AS AGA INST THE SALE PRICE OF SAY ITA NOS.3579 4122 3580 & 4488/MUM/2007 M/S.RATAN MOTORS. 3 RS.100 THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED DISCOUNT OF RS.2 BUT R AISED BILL FOR RS.100 AGAINST RECEIVING A SUM OF RS.98 FROM ABN AMRO HDFC ETC. AND THAT IS HOW THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COMM ISSION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GO T COMPLETE DETAILS TO PROVE ITS CLAIM IN THIS REGARD. AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) PROCEE DED TO DELETE THE ADDITION BY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE WHICH WAS NOT SO BEFORE THE A.O. EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS O R REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHER THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DISCUSSION BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ON ALLOWING OF SUCH COMMISSION IN SPECIFIC CASES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET AS IDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A.O. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE WILL EXTEND COOPERATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FURNISHING ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS REQU IRED IN THIS CONNECTION. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.1 95 802 (1 11 60 086 1 09 64 284) REPRESENTS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INCOME AS PER TDS CERTIFICAT ES AND THE AMOUNT OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS REDUCED BY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON AC COUNT OF COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.1.09 CRORE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DISCUSSED ABOUT THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.1 09 64 284 AND ADDED A SUM OF RS.1 11 60 086 WHICH IS IN FACT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INCOME AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES AND THE AMOUNT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THERE IS NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SUM OF RS.1 95 802 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THE LEARNED CIT(A) TOO DID NOT INQUIRE ABOUT THE SAID SUM AND PROCEEDED TO DEL ETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1.11 CRORE ON THE BASIS OF HIS FINDING GIVEN WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSION PAID TO CUSTOMERS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.09 CRORE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE O F A.O. FOR RENDERING A FRESH DECISION AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.3579 4122 3580 & 4488/MUM/2007 M/S.RATAN MOTORS. 4 4. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND WHICH SURVIVES IN REVENUE S APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.2 81 713 FROM DISALLOWANCE OF CAR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE S OF RS.3 13 015. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR THE SAID SUM ON ACCOUNT OF CA R REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. THE A.O. DID NOT GRANT DEDUCTION OF THIS AMOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WAS HAVING ITS OWN SERVICE STATION FOR REPAIRING OF CARS AND AS SUCH THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF INCURRING ANY OUTSIDE EXPENDITURE ON CA RS REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IT WAS CONTEND ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED PETROL EXPENSES PURCHASED FROM POONAM AUTO SERVICE ETC. WHICH WERE INCLUDED UNDER THIS HEAD. THE LEARN ED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. HE THEREFORE RESTR ICTED THE ADDITION TO 10% OF THE CLAIM. THUS A RELIEF OF RS.2 81 713 WAS ALLOWED A GAINST WHICH THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE REASON THAT THE RUNNING OF CARS REQUIRE PET ROL WHICH IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TWO PARTIES MENTIONE D IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AS THE EXPENDITURE ON PETROL WAS INCLUDED UNDER THE HE AD CAR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES NATURALLY SUCH EXPENDITURE H AS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THIS FINDING HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARN ED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE STRENGTH OF ANY EVIDENCE. WE THEREFORE APP ROVE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL ARE AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE AT 10% OF EACH OF CAR REPAIRS AND M AINTENANCE; REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE ; STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES ; AND TELEPHO NE EXPENSES. ITA NOS.3579 4122 3580 & 4488/MUM/2007 M/S.RATAN MOTORS. 5 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF NON-VERIFIABILITY OF CERTAIN EXPENSES AS WELL AS THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) APPROVED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRES ENT CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE LEARNED A.R. CONTROVERTING THE FACTUAL POSITION STA TED IN THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 9. THE FIRST GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAI NST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.68 75 586 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS IN COME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE SECOND GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 22 18 544 BEING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PASSED ON TO T HE CUSTOMERS. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THESE TWO GROUNDS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 2004. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY US IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 (SUPRA) WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR RENDERING FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS REC ORDED ABOVE. 10. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.26 67 499 MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY. THE FACT S OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED LIABILITY OF THIS SUM IN THE NAME O F M/S.USL ASSOCIATES. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO FURNISH THE DETAIL OF S UCH LIABILITY. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING FURNISHED ANY DETAIL THE A.O. CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NO SUCH ITA NOS.3579 4122 3580 & 4488/MUM/2007 M/S.RATAN MOTORS. 6 LIABILITY EXISTED AND AS SUCH IT WAS A CASE OF CESS ATION OF LIABILITY. HE THEREFORE MADE ADDITION FOR THE SAID SUM. IN THE FIRST APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION BY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE LOANS TA KEN IN THE EARLIER YEAR WERE ACTUALLY OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND FU RTHER NO INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BRINGING ANY ADVERSE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS FOUND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE SAID LIABILITY OF RS.26.67 LAKHS IN THE NAME OF M/S.USL ASSOCIATES EXISTED AT THE YE AR END. AS SUCH THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THIS YEAR. WE THEREFORE APPROVE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS NOT ALL OWED. 12. ALL OTHER GROUNDS OF THE REVENUES APPEAL RELAT E TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 06 17 462 MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF LO W GROSS PROFIT RATE. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THIS GROUND IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED GROSS PROFIT AT 3.77% IN THE CURRENT YEAR AS AGAINST 5.23% IN THE EARLIER YEAR. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR DECLINE IN G.P. RATE THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT WAS DUE TO INCREASE IN HEAVY SALES DURING THIS YEAR. SOME OTHER REASONS WE RE ALSO ADVANCED WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE A.O. IN PARA 8 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER. THE A.O. REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AND ADOPTED THE G.P. RATE OF 5.23% WHICH WAS THERE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1.06 CRORE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. 13. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AUTHORIZ ED DEALER OF AUTOMOBILES AND SPARES. COMPLETE STOCK TALLY WAS MAINTAINED AS THE ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND THE REPORT U/S.44AB WAS FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY REASON FOR REJECTIN G THE BOOK OF ACCOUNT EXCEPT FOR DECLINE IN THE G.P. RATE. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSIT ION THAT WHERE QUANTITATIVE RECORDS ARE ITA NOS.3579 4122 3580 & 4488/MUM/2007 M/S.RATAN MOTORS. 7 MAINTAINED IT BECOMES THE OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO FIND OUT FAULT IN THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK OR OTHER COMPONE NTS OF THE TRADING ACCOUNT WHERE HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE G.P. RATE. IN T HE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY GONE BY THE REDUCTION IN THE G.P. RATE F OR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS THAT T HERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER. COUPLED WITH THE REASON THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD MAINTAINED COMPLETE STOCK TALLY AND NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT REGARD FROM THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED. 14. GROUND NO.1-A OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAIN ST THE CONFIRMATION OF FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES:- DISALLOWANCES (RS.) OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED (RS.) I. SUNDRY EXPENSES 6 437 2 46 130 II. SALES PROMOTION 28 374 23 86 070 III. SECURITY CHARGES 17 002 5 40 117 IV. LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES 30 000 30 000 V. REPAIRS EXPENSES 2 70 750 3 15 340 15. GROUND NO.1-B IS PART OF GROUND NO.1-A BEING CO NFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.30 000. SIMILARLY GROUND NO.II AND III DEAL WITH CERTAIN ISSUES NOT DEALT WITH BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 16. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS FOUND THAT THE DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE DETAILS WERE NOT SUBM ITTED TO THE A.O. THE LEARNED A.R. CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT NOW ALL THE DETAILS A RE AVAILABLE WHICH CAN VERY WELL ITA NOS.3579 4122 3580 & 4488/MUM/2007 M/S.RATAN MOTORS. 8 BE VERIFIED. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THESE ISSUES AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. F OR DECIDING THEM AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH IN GROUND NOS.II AND III NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THESE ISSUES BE ALSO DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ORDINARILY THESE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION. SINCE THE MATTER IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. I HAS BEEN SENT TO THE AO IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO SEND THE OTHER MATTERS ALSO TO THE AO INSTEAD OF CIT(A) INASMUCH AS ONE ORDER CANNOT BE REMITTED TO TWO AUT HORITIES FOR RENDERING FRESH DECISION. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. SD/- SD/- ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) ( R.S.SYAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER MUMBAI : 30 TH APRIL 2010 . DEVDAS* COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENTS. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - XXII MUMBAI. 5. THE DR/ITAT MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. ITA NOS.3579 4122 3580 & 4488/MUM/2007 M/S.RATAN MOTORS. 9 TRUE COPY. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI. ITA NOS.3579 4122 3580 & 4488/MUM/2007 M/S.RATAN MOTORS. 10 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 27 .04.2010 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 2 7 .04.2010 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *